rehmwa 2 #76 February 10, 2004 You must have missed BV's response to Turtlespeed or mine would have made sense to you as tongue in cheek. Have you had a good breakfast sammich today? It might cool the blood a bit. and Yeah, women are nice ("not that there's anything wrong with that") ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EricaH 0 #77 February 10, 2004 K, I've read this whole thread & come to this conclusion, neither side will ever convince the other that they are right. Esp not on the internet & esp not using biased material & arguments. I do have 2 questions though, 1. someone said "OBL would be dead and we wouldn't be in Iraq." My question is how? How would the dems have gotten to OBL better than GWB. Would we be in N. Korea instead? How would things have ended differently in the Middle East w/ in Office? also, 2. Yes, jobs were lost. I would like to know what a Dem would have done differently. What EXACTLY did GWB do to cause these jobs to dissapear? Economies go in cycles - that is a fact. HOW could a pres that took office shorlty after a down cycle had begun reverse this? Most people like Roosevelt - the only thing that saved our economy in the 30's was WWII. Perhaps the depression would have ended, but it was the USA's huge war making machine that put everyone to work, pulled our economy & thus a majority of the world's economies out of a desasterous downward spiral. Presidents ought to be the cream of the crop & make the best decisions, however, historically a majority of presidents were blundering idiots. Yet somehow we made it to where we are now. IMO, the US is resemblent of ancient Rome, look at their ceasars - many horrid horrid men - based on the rate of change in this age, we will not be a power as long as Rome, but our rulers have been no where as corrupt. Yes, we have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils... question is, would you rather have someone that lies for the sake of getting the job done or someone that just lies. There is no can't. Only lack of knowledge or fear. Only you can fix your fear. PMS #227 (just like the TV show) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #78 February 10, 2004 QuoteYou must have missed BV's response to Turtlespeed or mine would have made sense to you as tongue in cheek. Have you had a good breakfast sammich today? It might cool the blood a bit. and Yeah, women are nice ("not that there's anything wrong with that") Yeah, I noticed about 2 seconds after... D'OH! A woman would do much more than a breakfast sandwich, besides it's lunchtime here Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #79 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteYou you are ok with sex appeal winning elections opposed to actual compitency. Now it makes sense. Now I understand your politics. Nope...competency is definitely more important. But sex appeal does win the votes. I don't care how the more competent candidate gets the votes, as long as it's legal. What matters is who ends up in office. So then you are going to vote for Bush over Kerry, or Dean, or any other candidate. That is refreshing that you want competency, what a change.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #80 February 10, 2004 QuoteAnd also not even one with the right of vote in the US..... Ooops, I forgot, some people here seem to think that because you are not American, you are not really allowed to post anything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #81 February 10, 2004 Erica - The top of you post is the big issue with the current crop of dems. Example, Clark says, he doesn't believe that Pres Bush did "everything" he possibly could to avoid 9/11. I really am interested in what is on his list of "everything" (and how much it would cost, and how he'd pay for it). But that's never come out listed and I haven't seen a reporter followup that statement of 'everything'. (short - if he had a list of additional things, he'd list them. Since he hasn't, then he's just being a generalist and pandering.) However, hopefully, when a single dem nominee is chosen, maybe they will then start giving details. I think it's likely. At that point we can compare and contrast plans and make a vote that's not all subjective and emotional. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #82 February 10, 2004 Good questions! >1. someone said "OBL would be dead and we wouldn't be in Iraq." > My question is how? How would the dems have gotten to OBL better > than GWB. Would we be in N. Korea instead? How would things have > ended differently in the Middle East w/ in Office? also, I think that if Gore had been in office we would have been in Iraq _sooner._ He was one of the biggest hawks in the Clinton administration. I also think we would have gotten UN backing before going in, though, which would have eased the transition afterwards. I don't think the Afghanistan issue would have turned out much different. Most of the captures of AL Qaeda terrorists have been made by foreign governments, and thus foreign relations (not the Afghanistan war) has been our most important weapon against Al Qaeda. Would Gore have done a better job with foreign relations than Bush? Hard to say, although foreign policy seems to be one of Bush's weak points. "This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating." - GWB >2. Yes, jobs were lost. I would like to know what a Dem would have > done differently. What EXACTLY did GWB do to cause these jobs to > dissapear? You have hit the nail on the head when you say that presidents have very little impact on economic cycles. They have a weak influence at best; at best they can hold up accounting standards, influence lending rates, and balance budgets (or come close) to keep a strong dollar. But in the end they are more observers than drivers of the economy. >Presidents ought to be the cream of the crop & make the best > decisions, however, historically a majority of presidents were > blundering idiots. Agreed, which is a result of electing popular rather than intelligent men. One of the drawbacks of our sort of government. >based on the rate of change in this age, we will not be a power as >long as Rome, but our rulers have been no where as corrupt. That's something I think people today simply can't fathom, that there will come a day when we're not the top dog. I hope that, on that day, we have enough allies (and have supported international justice and peacekeeping enough) that we can stand even in a world where we are only a minor player, much as Italy is today. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #83 February 10, 2004 Nice thoughtful reply. About time. Three questions: Do you really think Gore would have gotten backing from the UN? (I believe we all agreed that France, Germany and Russia had vested financial interest in Iraq maintaining the status quo). I don't believe he would have been any more successful than the current president - despite him being a more polished politician (that's not necessarily a compliment where I come from). And if he failed to get the UN to buy in (to their own previous resolutions), what do you think he would have done? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #84 February 10, 2004 >Do you really think Gore would have gotten backing from the UN? Yes. Even France and Germany indicated that they would agree to an ultimatum near the end of UN negotiations with the current administration, and the administration has been pretty abrasive to France. We didn't want to wait, so we invaded - but they made the offer. Given Gore's additional "polish" as you put it, I think he could have at least done the same job that Bush did - and I think he'd be willing to wait the extra 30 days. Although, as I said before, I think he would have started the whole process years earlier. >And if he failed to get the UN to buy in (to their own previous >resolutions), what do you think he would have done? I think he would have held off longer, then either invaded full-scale or gone with a watered down invasion (i.e. bombing campaign followed by massive support of insurrection fighters.) He had proposed that before in the Clinton administration. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #85 February 10, 2004 I'll respectfully disagree with him getting backing. I believe France and Germany had already played delaying tactics and this example was just another one of them. They had supported ultimatum before and then backpedaled.... I'm not sure what you mean by "started the whole process years earlier". GWB was only in office a year. Can you clear up? But in the last question, we agree that both candidates would have launched a war of one kind or another - other details aside as there is no way you or I can guess what type of invasion or if the locals would have supported an insurrection type conflict any more than they did with GWB. (In other words, the evidence to go to war is the same for whoever is in government and the same actions might have taken place regardless of who won the office - this makes sense as the previous admin and Congress generally made the same conclusions and Gore wasn't a nutjob. I don't believe Congress' access to most classified data is 'filtered' by the executive branch either as Kallend implies so Congress likely would have supported in the same manner.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #86 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteApparently you have a very short term memory. Remember GHB's popularity ratings after Gulf War 1? And remember the election result? Popular vote: Clinton 43.3% Bush 37.7% If not for Perot, the margin would have been wider. Electoral: Clinton 370 Bush 168 And a little recap: From the time of the Democratic convention, Governor Clinton obtained a commanding lead in the polls over Bush. Bush's campaign was hobbled by troubled economy. The campaign revolved primarily around economic issues. The end of the cold war, which the Republicans took credit for, perversely worked against them. No longer could they use the issue of "Do you trust the Democrats to stand up to the Russians" against them. Very similar circumstances...except it will be "Do you trust the democrats to stand up to the terrorists". I'm sure as it becomes more and more obvious even to the die hard Bush supporter that he's really accomplished nothing in this regard, the election will be all about the economy. And since I doubt there's going to be any miraculous recovery, no matter how much Bush predicts one, Kerry will be the next president. OK I'm convinced. Nothing will happen to change the polls. Even though there's been no debates nobody has heard Kerry's views on anything, it's over. No amount of debate or any world events will have any impact on the election. It's all over for GWB. Kerry is the winner. I'm sending an email to GWB right now informing him of your proclamation and advising him to just abandon the White House and ask the Supreme Court to let Kerry just go on and take over now. Lets just go on and get it over with. NOT !!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #87 February 10, 2004 Quote OK I'm convinced. Nothing will happen to change the polls. Even though there's been no debates nobody has heard Kerry's views on anything, it's over. No amount of debate or any world events will have any impact on the election. It's all over for GWB. Kerry is the winner. I'm sending an email to GWB right now informing him of your proclamation and advising him to just abandon the White House and ask the Supreme Court to let Kerry just go on and take over now. Lets just go on and get it over with. NOT !!!!!!!!! See, that is what they hope will happen - Don't play into their hands - I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #88 February 10, 2004 He's taken money from the Chinese, AIG and who knows who else to do favors or keep a tax loophole open. In fact there was an article in the liberal Houston Chronicle this morning that actually names the companies and individuals involved. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #89 February 10, 2004 Quote Economies go in cycles - that is a fact. HOW could a pres that took office shorlty after a down cycle had begun reverse this? Most people like Roosevelt - the only thing that saved our economy in the 30's was WWII. Perhaps the depression would have ended, but it was the USA's huge war making machine that put everyone to work, pulled our economy & thus a majority of the world's economies out of a desasterous downward spiral. . Erica, Bush's OWN PREDICTION is that his economic plan would create 1.6M jobs in 2003. He was hopelessly wrong. His OWN PREDICTION is that his economic plan would lead to a small and short-lived deficit. He was hopelessly wrong. I am simply judging him according to the words out of his own mouth. Not my opinions, but by the yardsticks he has set up for himself. Bush's economic policies have FAILED to produce the results HE said they would. And not just failed by a few %, but failed disastrously.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #90 February 10, 2004 QuoteHe's taken money from the Chinese, AIG and who knows who else to do favors or keep a tax loophole open. In fact there was an article in the liberal Houston Chronicle this morning that actually names the companies and individuals involved. uh huh, don't figure there would be any spin or anything there do you?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #91 February 10, 2004 QuoteAnd remember the election result? Popular vote: Clinton 43.3% Bush 37.7% If not for Perot, the margin would have been wider. Perot got 19%. I believe that Perot got into the race because of a long-standing animosity against the Bush clan. Some kind of Texas thing involving an airport. Perot wanted Bush to lose and ran to split the vote. He pulled votes away from Clinton. If he had not ran, possibly his 19% would have caused Bush to win. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #92 February 10, 2004 As far as major money contributors we should all take a look at this site Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #93 February 10, 2004 QuoteAs far as major money contributors we should all take a look at this site I needed a good laugh, thank you. Actually in response to that , perhaps you should look at the Limbaugh News Letter, it's ALMOST as far right as that site is left. BWAAHAHAHAHI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gemini 0 #94 February 10, 2004 Not from the Houston Chronicle. When I say a liberal rag, I mean they're only third to one in DC and LA. Blue skies, Jim Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
benny 0 #95 February 10, 2004 I've read Limbaugh shite (keep your friends close and your enemies...) but that site provides information about money given to all the candidates. Never go to a DZ strip show. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #96 February 10, 2004 QuoteI am simply judging him according to the words out of his own mouth. Not my opinions, but by the yardsticks he has set up for himself. You're not likely to find many presidents that have come out and said, "By the way, unemployment will increase, so will our defecit, and our children's education will get worse along with the environment." I just wish Bush would've taken the billions of dollars he used for war and made my nephew's education better and started in on this "public transportation" thing that America seems to be sucking at.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #97 February 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteI am simply judging him according to the words out of his own mouth. Not my opinions, but by the yardsticks he has set up for himself. You're not likely to find many presidents that have come out and said, "By the way, unemployment will increase, so will our defecit, and our children's education will get worse along with the environment." Well, in Bush's case it would have been the truth. But he has a hard time with that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
juanesky 0 #98 February 10, 2004 Well there is a difference between voting and posting BS.....Would you like a link to a dictionary?"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #99 February 10, 2004 QuoteWell, in Bush's case it would have been the truth. But he has a hard time with that. You know.. He does not always lie.. I think he really does have a plan for that many new Jobs. Since we will be invading Iran and Syria and several other middle eastern countries to find the WMD that Sadaam moved there to hide. we will need to increase our military forces. And since the value of the dollar is going down in comparison to foreign currencies. So the unemployed people do have the option of that carreer with a McJob or go into the military where the benefits are good and the pay is higher. Hell we are going to need at least 2.6 million in uniform if we keep pissing on the rest of the world with this foreign policy of arrogance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #100 February 10, 2004 QuoteWell there is a difference between voting and posting BS.....Would you like a link to a dictionary? That be great, that way I can look up Purity of Blood and some of the other racist BS you like to post Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
